An NRO panel of experts assess the Republican candidates’ performances on Thursday night in Des Moines.
David Brody So much for Ronald Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” that says, “Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Tim Pawlenty was the biggest violator last night, but guess what? It worked. I thought it was pretty clear that he won the night.
Let’s be clear: Pawlenty had to make a move last night. He hasn’t shown much progress in national polls even though he’s working extremely hard and has an impressive legislative résumé. He needed to do something to shake things up and by going after Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney he showed a tenacity that had been sorely lacking. Since Pawlenty is a hockey player, maybe he went to hockeyfights.com before the debate to get all riled up. Only time will tell if Pawlenty’s performance last night will make a difference, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see him receive a nice little bounce from the debate.
Advertisement
As for the other candidates, I thought Michele Bachmann had yet another strong performance. She looked very calm and self-assured up there. The key for Bachmann is to stay focused on the issues and make no mistakes. She succeeded on both counts.
Mitt Romney continued to stroll along. As much as Pawlenty and a few others take shots at him, Romney seems to have an answer for all of it. As the saying goes, “Never let them see you sweat.” Well, Romney has been cool as a cucumber. Rick Perry may change that situation in a hurry.
— David Brody is White House correspondent for CBN News.
Jamie M. Fly For national-security conservatives following the GOP primary process thus far, ascertaining where candidates stand on foreign policy has been a frustrating endeavor. With a few exceptions, such as Governors Pawlenty and Romney, most have had little to say about national-security issues, and those who tend to be the most vocal often tout extremist views that put them well outside of the mainstream.
The discussion of foreign policy in last night’s debate was an improvement over June’s debate on CNN, where important issues such as Afghanistan and the war on terror were relegated to barely ten minutes at the end with very little back and forth between the candidates. The exchange tonight provided more of an opportunity for candidates to make their views known, but unfortunately ended up primarily showcasing Rep. Ron Paul’s ridiculous notion that Iran is not a significant threat to the United States or its allies.
It was also Paul who brought up national security even when it was not the topic — complaining repeatedly about American “militarism” and calling for cuts to defense spending.
Continuing to include Paul and his mob of vocal supporters at Republican debates makes the GOP look unserious. It would be as if Bernie Sanders were allowed to grace the stage at Democratic-party events and promote his socialist vision for America to a cheering crowd.
Compounding the problem, some in the Tea Party movement now seem to be following Paul’s recipe for American decline. Staffers from several of the largest Tea Party organizations, including FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots, told The Hill on Wednesday that defense cuts should be considered by the debt-limit “supercommittee.”
Their willingness to sacrifice U.S. national security and America’s global responsibilities to further their small-government agenda is shameful and could cause the Republican party to cede its decades-long credibility on national-security issues.
Americans may be focused on fiscal problems at home, but the Republican party needs a nominee in 2012 who can challenge Barack Obama’s disastrous foreign-policy record as well as his mishandling of the economy.
Instead of showing that they can keep Americans safe and advance America’s interests abroad, far too many on the right seem interested in running to the left of Obama on national security. This attempt to morph the party of Reagan into that of Carter is not only dangerous, it raises questions about whether the GOP has a candidate ready to fulfill perhaps the most important and sacred presidential duty.
I'm afraid that the fact that several of contributors for this article found Tim Pawlenty's remark about "mow your lawn" to be odd demonstrates their elitism just as much as any liberal. You see, we regular folk know what that means and even say stuff like that. It doesn't mean I'm really going to cut your grass, it means I don't think there's any chance of something happening. Like when I say "If such-and-such happens, I'll eat my truck." They probably wouldn't get that statement either. Or understand why I have a pick-up truck. After all, I have a six-figure income, a Master's Degree in Computational Mathematics and work as the CIO for a utility. I'm just not an elitist, I get the joke. Of course, these days you can't swing a dead cat without hitting an elitist...
The debate was somewhat boring. Fox focussed on gay marriage when people are thinking if they are going to have a job by the end of the month doesn't help the GOP.
While the answer to the 1 to 10 tax compromise question will do good with the GOP base; it might seem stuborn with the wider electorate. Debaters should refuse to answer "raise your hand questions".
My take, Romney looks like the one with best chances to defeat Obama.
Apart from the ammusing line on how many religions do you plan to offend on the no chances pizza CEO, Fox could have done better.
Yes, defense cuts should be considered. It is an open secret in Washington that defense spending continues to be incredibly wasteful, and that defense contractors are cleaning up at the taxpayers' expense, frequently with little to show for it. Not only that, but even the DoD has requested that certain weapons programs be discontinued because they are not needed - only to be rebuffed by Congress, who under pressure from politically connected contractors, told the DoD they would get the programs whether they liked them or not.
Please stop confusing defense spending with national security. They are not the same any more than building bridges to nowhere is the same as building our nation's economy. We have effectively defended our nation in previous wars with a defense budget that was a fraction of what it is now as a portion of our total economy.
This is for Jamie Fly: you are very dismissive of Ron Paul's foreign policy and this is disappointing. Paul has not had little to say about national security issues - just the contrary because it is a major focus of his.
First, if you don't believe America is militaristic, you are blind. in the last 21 years the list includes two wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, a conflict in Libya, and numerous other missile strikes and special operations throughout the world (not to mention hundreds of military bases around the world). Please name another country over the past two decades that has been as militarily active as the US. If you are unwilling to admit that the Republicans have followed (and most likely still will follow) a military interventionist foreign policy, you are blind.
Paul makes convincing arguments that these wars and our occupations and arrogant belief that we have the right to strike militarily anywhere in the world if we even suspect a threat or want to dispose and dictator or instigate regime change - Paul says these kind of attitudes and actions make us unsafe. And he's right. I think the American people have bought into the untruth that a strong show of military force around the world makes us stronger and others less determined to attack us. But I doubt this is true.
Paul has also made it clear that you can cut defense where there is waste and fraud and unnecessary programs without harming our national defense. And the first and best way we can do this is to end he wars abroad and bring US troops home. That would save hundreds of billions itself. You - like many Republicans - are paranoid about cutting a cent from defense, when there are many reasonable cuts that can be made without endangering the sophistication of our military or safety of our soldiers.
You don't seem to understand what is good national defense and when it is appropriate to strike back militarily. The BEST national defense we have right now is to focus on rebuilding our economy, and that means stabilizing our currency, promoting private business which will revitalize jobs, curbing taxes and regulations, cutting the size of government, and protecting our liberties and freedoms. We leave ourselves much more vulnerable to attack when we have a weak economy, a devalued dollar, falling global confidence in our currency and credit standing, and jobs fleeing overseas. If the dollar crashes and our economy collapses we will be in far more serious trouble than if we have never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. You also don't seem to think the US has to abide by Just War Theory, which plainly states that the only just war is a defensive war. Which means we must be attacked or harmed before we are morally justified in attacking back (such as 9/11, which I think very much merited a military response). Many Americans might find this scary or foolish, but we risk starting unjustified and immoral wars, which is what we have done to a significant degree over the past couple decades. We should bring our troops home, protect our ports and boarders, strengthen our economy and build a robust NATIONAL defense, not INTERNATIONAL defense. Then if we are attacked, Congress should declare war and we should strike quickly and effectively with the American public behind us. We would be far more effective, cost efficient, and right in our response if we did this. World War II only lasted 5 1/2 years; Iraq and Afghanistan are pushing 10.
America has just begun its decline in global influence and standing and it certainly isn't due to Paul's policies, since they certainly haven't been followed. I believe that if we actually followed the Constitution we would once again rise to the top and be respected as a nation of opportunity that protected individual liberty.
Also, calling Paul and his supporters a "mob" is baseless. Please explain how my reasoned response here is considered mob-like. You underscore just how far the Republican party has wandered from its roots and origins as a conservative party when you label Ron's Constitutionally and liberty-based arguments and policies and mobish and fringe. Since when did following policy laid out in the Constitution constitute "fringe"? In fact, it is centrist.
I think Paul would make a better president than any of the other candidates because he is impeccably consistent in his beliefs and policies and because he would actually CHANGE Washington (or at least seriously try). If we elect a Pawlenty or Romney or Bachman, we are just going to get the same old same old Washington corruption, partisan bickering, and worthless legislation. I wish Americans could wake up and snap out of their two-party voting mindset and start voting for virtuous candidates who will uphold the Constitution, not those who just tow the party line.
Great to kow Santorum cares about the rights of gays in Iran. Now if he only felt as strongly about the rights of gays in the country he wants to lead.
How can anyone lump Gingrich in as part of the "fringe"? He showed more leadership, vision, direction and self-awareness than any of the others on stage last night and more so than any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan. Someone on Fox News said that Gingrich won the battle; Romney won the war (but only because Romney is ahead and only needed to NOT make a mistake). I am still taking a "wait and see" approach, but it certainly does nothing to further the chances for any of the candidates to beat Obama (which, God help us, MUST happen) if NRO is going to pick apart the field of candidates this early and dismiss half as "fringe" and un-electable. Isn't that what the MSM is for, after all?
I never thought I would say this, but Ron Paul won last night's debate. The most impressive thing about last night was that he didn't sound like a politician - and he was the only one who didn't. I am extremely tired of the entire GOP field of hacks and politicians who say whatever it takes to be elected ... whatever riles up the base ... whatever makes for a good sound bite - and then goes and does what is politically expedient.
Ron Paul answered the questions that were presented and he had the facts to back up his answers ... not too many of the others did that - they did what they usually do - speak around the questions, hoping no one notices and speak of their past record - even when its not relevant.
And you know what? His perspective on Iran and our foreign policy is as valid as any other
One strike against them all though; when they all stated their opposition to tax increases even if it was in the form of a 10:1 ratio of cuts to taxes ... yea right ... get real
@liberty101 - absolutely correct on EVERY point in your post. It's amazing that conservatives see themselves as plain-speaking and the owners of down home common sense, but when someone like Ron Paul puts facts in their face, all logic goes out of the window. ALL Americans, regardless of political belief, should be aware of the obvious truth that invading nations and trying to bring about change (especially when those nations aren't a direct security threat to YOU)is going to invite trouble. It doesn't make you anti-military - it's makes you smart!
Interesting take from the various columnists on last night's debates. I spent the time listening to the debates with about 35 political friends on Yahoo in a chatroom.
There was no consensus as to who was the winner but Romney (even though many don't like him) got points for his Presidential presentation, and answers particularly to what he would do regarding the economy. He was excellent in responding to each question.
Michelle Bachman was supported by most for both her answers to the "loaded" questions and her general position on all issues.
Newt Gingrich was given high points for his responses on all questions and his handling of the "gotcha" questions.
We all like Herman Cain but know neither he nor Newt have a chance. I'd like to see Herman in a Republican administration.
We all thought Pawlenty LOST in his attempt to denigrate and attack Bachmann's experience et al.
Rick Santorum is a decent guy but not a Presidential candidate.
How did the others get there?
In any case, after the debate there was ongoing conversation regarding the individuals et al.
Winners: Romney didn't lose ground; Bachmann looks good; Newt was appreciated for bringing up good points; Herman Cain is a good man but not electable; Tim Pawlenty is not going to get the nod. He made a miscalculation in attacking the way he did; Santorum is out.
I find it incredibly ironic that conservatives supposedly hate federal mandates, are in favor of preventing the government from meddling with individual liberty, and yet they are the epitomy of big government. They think that the government should decide who you are allowed to marry, when and how you should have children, and recieve kudos for forcing their "superior" morality on those who may disagree? I thought America was based on priciples of freedom to choose what/who we believe in, or don't believe in. I don't buy their proclamations that they know what small government is.
Conservatives want Government to tell me who to marry and when to have kids? Funny, I don't recall being visited by a Federal Marriage and Fertility Officer when the Evil George W. Bush was in power, ordering me to procreate and providing me with a fertile dame.
If I choose to get into a committed relationship with another dude, and if I choose to have a ceremony to mark the occasion of our commitment, not a SINGLE ONE of the candidates in the forum last night would use Federal Power to try and stop us.
Meanwhile, the alternative party is issuing federal mandates on everything from what health insurance I can buy, what kind of vehicle I can buy, even what kind of light bulb I'm allowed to use.
I don't know of anyone who's trying to tell you when or how to have children, that's pretty much common knowledge. However, having conceived a child, I object most strenuously to murdering the baby in the womb. Cordially, Bill
Without a doubt Romney won. From his introduction with the 7 points to his closing speech about going to work for the American people. Mitt embodies true leadership qualities: intelligence, integrity, kindness and strength.
I also believe Mitt won the debate because of the way he handled the Democratic “community organizer” hecklers while on the stump that morning.
His defense of success, capitalism and the free market was amazing! Mitt showed just how strong he can be when under attack. It was a mix of passion and composure that comes from man who knows who he is and what he believes and why he should lead America.
